I personally own a camera with an EVF (Olympus E-P2) and while it is a fairly good camera, and a pretty enjoyable user experience, it is also painfully slow to take pictures (shutter lag + EVF blackout), hard to focus using my M-mount lenses, and the crop sensor simply does not take full advantage of the excellent lenses in my possession. On the other hand, I totally enjoy my Leica M2 and Voigtlander Bessa, both of which are capable rangefinders.

So, my take is, keep making good cameras, but if Leica’s got some money to spare, a quality digital rangefinder with lower specs (I don’t need anything more than ISO800), and none of the frills (HD video?) in a nice metal body, will be the perfect Leica M for me.

I have kept both items together with my Elmar 90 mm ever since and they still are in the same good condition even today, as always capable of shooting exactly the georgeous negatives they did from the very beginning. Still the same tight tolerances everywhere. Even the coating of the lens is OK and scratchfree and just as remarkable – the lens is still clear and practically dustfree looked through. The lens is beautifully crafted and still looks new to me – but being an amateur I have handled my sweet combo far more careful than a pro would be able to.

I valued my two-stroke M3 (from 1953) over the M2, but the M2 was a better seller because of the 1:1. rangefinder. Fifty-seven years is a very long time for any type of equipment living up to the original specifications, but Leicas are capable of both that, heavy duty and a long life. I think my Leica will still be functional and in good shape the day I die – apart from the slow shutter-speed section (below 1/30 pr sec.) This springloaded section needs maintenance if the oiling gets old and stiffens. You always know when. If the shutter stops in the middle of the one-second shutter-speed and remains open, the M-body definitely needs to be brought in for the periodical disassembling, cleaning and oiling.

There were mishaps – bad shots but all of them was my fault. Now, finally my M is stationary. But my lenses will continue making themselves useful into the future and the digital era.

By the way – how exact is Leica’s rangefinder looking into the field of depth? – not AF speedy of today, but very precise if your object isn’t moving! If you can see, you can focus! On tripod I once measured exactly ten meters from camera to object and focused. The slightest obtainable separation of the two pictures in the finder I could create was a measurable difference in depth of just about two centimeters. If you moved the object that much in the right direction the two pictures once again became visibly united. That’s why precise focusing on eyes in portraits are both fast and a piece of cake using Leicas. Using the rangefinder to day is not the same I must admit – my eyes were much better then. Most auto-focus devices today outperform my manual skills in the AF department by a solid margin.

Reading about the succes of the M9, Steve’s article, all these comments – and the backgound of all this – the return and revival of a legend is deeply satisfying to me.

A happy new year to all.

I’m incidentally switching from 5DII to M9, so have taken the path to Leica for the same reason as so many others in this community have. Like so much else in life, we eventually always return to old fashioned values.

Thanks for kicking off such a great debate Steve.

Granted, the M9 is kicking the ball out of the park. But, IMHO, Leica has to look out the next 10 years and make a product that will preserve its future…this means addressing the threat from lower priced medium formats with digital backs, higher quality and more versatile DSLRs, Sony EVILs and Panasonic/Olympus micro 4/3rds. And continue building on it’s strengths, the lenses.

On another note, I just wish more people (including me) would channel their passion to helping other people less fortunate than them. It’ll help us be more in touch with reality and maybe even be a better photographer.

while your CM idea sounds nice I wouldn’t be willing to spend any more money on it than what a regular crop sensor DSLR costs. I don’t know where in the Leica world people (fanboys) seem to expect that the world is waiting for yet another overpriced Leica.

Let me put this straight: I disagree with Mr Reichmann but as being part of the 99% of camera owners who cannot afford even thinking about purchasing an M I can disagree with you as well. Easily. You see a resurrection of Leica when they simply manage their first proper and amazing digital body – the M9. People like the M because the M8 was not where it should have been. People look at the M because the X1 is just a toy camera. And because the S2 is out of reach for everybody.

People also look at the M9 because that’s the only camera with interchangeable lenses that Leica carried into the digital era. Remember the R? Anybody? Wanna know what’s wrong with Leica? Being unable to keep their pro SLR alive for one.

Then prices. Every product seems way overpriced. While we see quite some enthusiastic buyers I doubt this will hold on. There is a finite amount of people that buys one body for the price of seven micro four thirds. There just is. No matter how many blogs you guys set up. There is a finite amount of people that might buy a certain camera at a horrible price. Work on the prices first. Everything else is just ok for now. The real problem is the digital M gets outdated. Face it. Only one reason why the M8 is so “cheap” now – no sane human being would buy one otherwise. Leica has arrived in the digital age. Bodies come and go now. At least for every other manufacturer. The M8 was on for maybe 3 years. Now it’s cnsidered out of date and it’s successor does everything better. It’s going to depreciate in value.

Also I don’t see the point why both Reichmann and then you have to discuss this in public. Sort of pointless. I don’t want any of the cameras you or him suggest. I like the current offering but the price for the M9 is a joke. It just is. Every Leica lens price topping 3000$ is a sad joke as well. These products can never become popular because only fanboys dare to afford them.

You know when people should have protested? When Solms killed their own R system in which people have invested thousands. People should have protested when the DLux4 costs 50% or more than the LX3 while still being the same camera.

At least Mr Reichmann takes some time explaining his views and he requests at least some modern features. What Leica lacks is the will to properly research their product, modern technology should be available at least as additions to a product range. For this price I demand options. For this price this should be customary to expect the best technologies. Not just some. Leica should be leading the way in most respects I feel.

But mark my words: apart from us enthusiasts this market is tiny. And finite. But of course there’s always another pointless white collectors’ edition to buy one day.

I believe there IS a distinctive “rangefinder aesthetic,” one that arises from the fact that the viewing/aiming system and the image-forming system are completely separate and operate on different principles. As (I think) Bob Schwalberg wrote years ago, you look INTO an SLR (or, now, an EVF camera) but you look THROUGH a rangefinder camera; it makes a difference, especially to those of us whose photography is primarily subject-oriented rather than image-oriented. Take away the RF viewing system and that aesthetic would be gone. It would be a huge loss.

Anyway, there’s no point in writing open letters to Leica. They’re fat and happy right now with the M9′s success in straddling the wants of their (smaller) constituency of serious RF photographers and their (larger) constituency of affluent gents who enjoy feeling that whatever they own is “the best.”

Where open letters need to be going are to OTHER camera companies who might be able to bring the “rangefinder aesthetic” to a wider audience. Designing a truly modern rangefinder camera is not unfeasible: for example, current Canon and Nikon lenses contain distance encoders, and I can imagine a system that would use that encoding to drive RF optics via a micromotor, rather than expensive-to-machine cams and levers. This approach would make it possible to create an RF body that could use DSLR lenses… which in turn would allow selling it as a supplement to an existing DSLR system for times when RF viewing is an advantage, rather than as a completely separate cul-de-sac with no interoperability with a photographer’s other equipment.

Thanks for the discussion. Not everyone will feel the same about the M or where it should go, that is obvious. But it is fun to discuss these things. My feelings are strong about it so I wanted to vent. I will try to address your questions…

What does the M not being built like a DSLR have to do with taking pictures? EVERYTHING! I hate taking out big DSLR’s, even the D5000 as small as it is. I just do not enjoy it. Many feel the same way, mostly M shooters. Having a built in grip and live view and all of these other “changes” would make it bigger, fatter and DSLR like. For me, the camera would then not be as enjoyable to use. I like to use a camera that not only gives excellent quality but also is enjoyable for me to use. TO ME, the M as it is today is that camera.

Macro? Leica sells a 90 macro that is not really much of a macro. So yes they sell a macro lens and a macro attachment for that lens. Adding live view would not make the camera a macro machine as the M mount and lenses are limited to how close they can focus. Leica would have to totally redesign the camera into something that it is not. Yes, a new design and new camera. Not an M.

7D, D300, M9, etc – I did those for fun, Thats why they are tagged in the “Just For Fun” category BTW, lots of readers enjoyed those. I tested each cameras as a “kit” with their kit lenses. Yes, the M7 used to be bundled with a 50 cron as the kit lens. Of course I am aware of the smaller sensors but IMO the smaller m4/3 kind of beat the 7D. Also, the M8 files look pretty much like the M9 files, just cropped and not as ‘rich”. They look more edgy and film like maybe. The M8 files would still kill the 7D and d300 in my experience with all of these cameras.

5DII…As for the 5DII and M9, I have shot both and I have shot the 5D II with all L glass including the 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L etc. The 35L vs 28 Elmarit on the M8 was not even close. You can see that comparison in my 5DII or maybe it was the 35L review. Against the M9 it would be even worse for the 5DII. Also, at base ISO the M9 puts out a much cleaner file than the 5DII.

I like the 5D and 5DII as a camera but for me the handling of the 5D is just not fun nor comfortable. The M9 is fairly light. 19 oz with battery. The 5DIi is 28.6 oz WITHOUT a battery and much bulkier. Add one of those monster L lenses and forget it! Just not fun to carry around all day, and the IQ is not up to the M9. Honestly, the original 5D may have had more pleasing files than the MKII. Just my opinion of course.

Your last point is spot on. I look at my pictures I take from all cameras and I know what I like. I take into account the image quality and look of the images as well as the enjoyment of using the camera. The M9 delivers for ME in both areas very highly. The 5D type does not. A 5D and 85L, while a gorgeous combo is just not something I would lug out on a daily basis!

In the end it really doesn’t matter anyway! We all obsess way to much over gear (myself included) when it really isn’t even that important. To me, the #1 thing about photography is the enjoyment I get out of it. If I do not enjoy it, then what’s the point? Adding live view, grips, new sensors and DSLR capabilities to an M would make it something totally different. Maybe an R series DSLR is what you guys are after? Hmmmm.

I bought my M9 because of the convience of having excellent image quality and access to a wide range of photographic tools in a small package.

Regarding changing the M, you write:

“that is fine and dandy but would take away from the feel of the camera.”

“I am a fan of the base plate. Keeps the camera from looking and feeling like a DSLR”

What does this have to do with taking pictures. Again, subjective and perhaps not others (such as moi), perhaps even most, do not feel the same.

“the M doesn’t do macro”

As you are no doubt aware Leica sells macro M lenses. Moreover, such a simple change would expand the utility of the camera so I wouldn’t have to own a DSLR. If you don’t like Live View – don’t use it.

“The IQ would also be different with a CMOS sensor”

Evidence please? Just because Canon looks different doesn’t mean CMOS is the reason. Every Camera manufacture choses how to translate the image colour from RAW to the final JPG. The raw conversion program DXO will even make a Canon to look like a Nikon, Fujicrhome or Tri-X.

Regarding comparing the M9 to the 7D or the D300. Sensor size affects signal to noise, dynamic range, apeture/focal length appearance and bokeh. It is not fair or proper to compare these two different formats of cameras as being representative of DSLR vs. M. I bought the M9, not the M8 because of these difference.

Compare the M9 to the 5D Mark II and put a good lens on both and there is little to choose between them. The M9 is slightly sharper, due to the lack of the AA filter, but at the risk of moire. The 5D is better at high ISO at the risk of … carrying around a big heavy lens. The camera body weights are surprising similar without a lens.

However, sharpness when bokeh, focus error and subject movement are taken into account really doesn’t mean much and ISO differences are only visible under the most extreme conditions and really don’t matter at ISO 1600 and less. This is one of the reasons I read you site – you pay less attention to such unimportant details and focus more on the picture.

Andrew

I agree with two things in that article. The base plate issue: I’ve no idea how difficult it is to switch a battery or add a card, but if it’s a pain in the ass, perhaps and easier way to open it or easier access is a good idea. I also would like a grip of some sort, or that thumbs up accessory. Anything to keep me from dropping the camera. (It’s like a big bar of soap). I’m careful with my cameras but why tempt fate.

I think leica CL would be a lovely idea.